Some high points in career winning percentages, open era

These calculations were done to find out at which point in these players careers they reached their respective highest cumulative career percentages. They are done at year end because otherwise it would take way too long.

Connors was still above 85% at the end of 1984, but his highest point seems to be the end of 1982. On the other hand, McEnroe’s career percentage was a bit higher at the end of 1985 than at the end 1984, which at first I found surprising. Also a bit surprising was that Federer's percentage has continued to rise with respect to what it was at the end of his best period.

These calculations were done to find out at which point in these players careers they reached their respective highest cumulative career percentages. They are done at year end because otherwise it would take way too long.

Connors was still above 85% at the end of 1984, but his highest point seems to be the end of 1982. On the other hand, McEnroe’s career percentage was a bit higher at the end of 1985 than at the end 1984, which at first I found surprising. Also a bit surprising was that Federer's percentage has continued to rise with respect to what it was at the end of his best period.

Benhur, Thanks. This confirms that Federer is not (almost) invincible...

Click to expand...

You're a petty man taking a dig at Federer instead of praising greats like Lendl and Connors. Federer had 3 consecutive seasons with over 90% win percentage. He was nigh invincible at his peak. He has the highest win percentage on grass and hardcourt ever.

Benhur, Thanks. This confirms that Federer is not (almost) invincible...

Click to expand...

his winning % from 2003 when he got really good-now is sick
anyway some stats from wikipedia, not up to date for 2013 but still

Federer is the first male to achieve 84.6% ratio of Grand Slam finals reached after making it to more than 10 semifinals (22 finals/26 semi-finals), this is between 2003 Wimbledon Championships and 2010 US Open. He has since made it to 24 Grand Slam finals from 32 semi-finals giving him a career ratio of 75%. From the 2004 Australian Open to the 2009 US Open he had a ratio of 87% (20 finals/23 semi-finals).

Federer is currently the only male player to have winning percentage over 85% in three Grand-Slam tournaments (all except French Open). Only Federer and Rafael Nadal have winning percentage over 80% in all the four Grand-Slam tournaments.

Federer is the only male to achieve winning percentage of 95% in Grand-Slam tournaments in three different seasons (2004, 2006 and 2007).

As of 2012 US Open, Federer's match record in Grand Slam tournaments is 247–37, giving him an 87.0 winning percentage, being third behind Borg (89.8) and Nadal (87.7)

You're a petty man taking a dig at Federer instead of praising greats like Lendl and Connors. Federer had 3 consecutive seasons with over 90% win percentage. He was nigh invincible at his peak. He has the highest win percentage on grass and hardcourt ever.

Click to expand...

NaturallyFederer, What is wrong to read statistics provided by other posters??? It's only a serious reaction to those who praise Federer more than it is reasonable.

If you Federer fanatics would not worship Federer to such an exaggerated extent, I would not be enticed to give a contra...

I don't have an agenda against Federer, but some Fed fans have an agenda against me...

NaturallyFederer, What is wrong to read statistics provided by other posters??? It's only a serious reaction to those who praise Federer more than it is reasonable.

If you Federer fanatics would not worship Federer to such an exaggerated extent, I would not be enticed to give a contra...

Click to expand...

Poor you, no one I've seen converse with you worships Federer (except maybe TMF). Most recognise his talent and achievements. The fact you don't is the reason why you have a distorted view of his fans. They tell you the facts and you're too stubborn to accept it.

You can ofcourse read statistics, the fact that you only single out Federer to mention and that in a negative manner is all the evidence anyone needs for your agenda.

These calculations were done to find out at which point in these players careers they reached their respective highest cumulative career percentages. They are done at year end because otherwise it would take way too long.

Connors was still above 85% at the end of 1984, but his highest point seems to be the end of 1982. On the other hand, McEnroe’s career percentage was a bit higher at the end of 1985 than at the end 1984, which at first I found surprising. Also a bit surprising was that Federer's percentage has continued to rise with respect to what it was at the end of his best period.

Further evidence that Connors is underrated by many here. As I've said before, I would have him 3rd of all-time behind Laver and Federer. Many people disagree I know, but the above is one reason among many as to why I put him 3rd.

Poor you, no one I've seen converse with you worships Federer (except maybe TMF). Most recognise his talent and achievements. The fact you don't is the reason why you have a distorted view of his fans. They tell you the facts and you're too stubborn to accept it.

You can ofcourse read statistics, the fact that you only single out Federer to mention and that in a negative manner is all the evidence anyone needs for your agenda.

Click to expand...

NaturallyFederer, I DON'T have an anti-Federer agenda, but you and your Fed colleagues have an agenda against me...

It's my right to put Federer (and the former GOAT, Sampras) in the correct perspective, at least according to my opinion. That's all I try to do. It could be at the most that I'm wrong with my Federer consideration but that's NOT identic with an "agenda" which needs an intention. Hope I was able to explain it...

NaturallyFederer, I DON'T have an anti-Federer agenda, but you and your Fed colleagues have an agenda against me...

It's my right to put Federer (and the former GOAT, Sampras) in the correct perspective, at least according to my opinion. That's all I try to do. It could be at the most that I'm wrong with my Federer consideration but that's NOT identic with an "agenda" which needs an intention. Hope I was able to explain it...

Give it a rest Bobby, you're the only one interested in denigrating players. Sometimes, if you have nothing positive to say, say nothing at all.

Click to expand...

NDQ with the agenda against me: I'm not only allowed to praise a given player (even though you Federer fanatics have blamed me for praising Rosewall) but also to criticize a given player (f.i. Federer) in case he is overrated by many people. Imagine a poster would rank Karlovic as an alltime top ten player. Would not you contradict and tried to show that Ivo is not???

NDQ with the agenda against me: I'm not only allowed to praise a given player (even though you Federer fanatics have blamed me for praising Rosewall) but also to criticize a given player (f.i. Federer) in case he is overrated by many people. Imagine a poster would rank Karlovic as an alltime top ten player. Would not you contradict and tried to show that Ivo is not???

Click to expand...

Not if the thread had nothing to do with discussing Ivo's greatness where my agenda to hate on Ivo would fit right in.

By the way, there is a reason that not everyone rates Ivo that high but they do rate Federer so highly. Perhaps you should open your mind just a bit.

Now, back into stuff, guys.It is completely unbelievable the % Connors had.Playing so many years atop, going into 1985 ( 33 yrs old¡¡) and still at 85% or so, it is a tribute to him.I think his time was the most competitive ever or, at least, one of the most competitive.There were great champs but also a solid ground, with many US players you don´t see anymore.Yet Jimbo was capable of such a %.wow¡¡¡ that alone should place him among the truly greats, not mentioning how enjoyable was seeing him play like a demon.

I know, it is just that some of the younger folks (who I assume are unmarried) in the general pro player discussion like to go that route.

You've just taken the first step to joining the BOTE.

Click to expand...

Yes, teens can be very unbearable.it´s not that loooooong I was one of them.BTw, I don´t know her but it speaks very well, IMO, of Federer that he´s close to her and their babies, seems an all right fellow.

I also admire Nadal´s girlfriend, Cisca.How can she stand all that buttpicking?

NaturallyFederer, I DON'T have an anti-Federer agenda, but you and your Fed colleagues have an agenda against me...

It's my right to put Federer (and the former GOAT, Sampras) in the correct perspective, at least according to my opinion. That's all I try to do. It could be at the most that I'm wrong with my Federer consideration but that's NOT identic with an "agenda" which needs an intention. Hope I was able to explain it...

You are right: I'm a rather poor man: got not too many "Euros".

Click to expand...

You have every right to denigrate federer's competition, and place him in the "correct persepctive" , as you say...

But you need to understand that is not a popular opinion and you will be chastised for it. So do not be surprised if your opinions are criticized and even ridiculed. Don't act like the victim when you are the one who provokes by denigrating great players.

as you have done in this thread

Also, what some may think as a correct perspective may be characterized by you as federer worshipping. But once again more often than not that is not a popular opinion.

The majority can be wrong, but often they are right most of the times.

Now, back into stuff, guys.It is completely unbelievable the % Connors had.Playing so many years atop, going into 1985 ( 33 yrs old¡¡) and still at 85% or so, it is a tribute to him.I think his time was the most competitive ever or, at least, one of the most competitive.There were great champs but also a solid ground, with many US players you don´t see anymore.Yet Jimbo was capable of such a %.wow¡¡¡ that alone should place him among the truly greats, not mentioning how enjoyable was seeing him play like a demon.

Click to expand...

Yes, that’s pretty much how I feel too, even if at the time I found Connors too much of a professional jerk to like him. But ther IS something quite unique about him, and related to the fact that at the age of 32-33 he still had an 85+ career winning percentage. He is almost in his own category in this respect. And the fact that in his career he was dealing with 3 other guys who are also in the top 4 in this same category, makes the whole thing even more impressive. Nobody else in the open era can really be compared to these 4 in this kind of consistency, especially in the 90s.

2012 winning percentage says hi. 85+% is pretty damn high by whoever standards you choose and that is Fed in twilight years (turned pro in 1998) vs the 5 years younger rivals all in their prime.

I should give myself for medal for not cursing out or insulting, trying to hold back.

Click to expand...

This is really not about Federer and Nadal. Their presence in the list is partly to put the other 4 in perspective in this particular category, especially Connors. Nor is it about whimsical cut-off dates like "first slam" or first communion, which have nothing to do with career percentages.

On the other hand, McEnroe’s career percentage was a bit higher at the end of 1985 than at the end 1984, which at first I found surprising. Also a bit surprising was that Federer's percentage has continued to rise with respect to what it was at the end of his best period.

Click to expand...

Without crunching all the numbers I can only guess, but maybe this is happening in both McEnroe and Federer's case because even these declining years (1985 for Mac, 2008-present for Federer) have better win-loss records than the earliest years (1977-78 for Mac, 1998-2002 for Federer).

Interesting to have that pointed out, though: how a year in a player's decline period can still raise the overall average.

Some similar argument has been made about Borg. It's commonly said that Borg's overall percentage would have dropped if he had continued playing full seasons beyond '81. But his career percentage would have continued to rise (or at least not begun falling), so long as any full seasons he played in '82 and '83 were better years than the first few years of his career (1972-75). He might have begun declining in '82 and '83 but that doesn't mean at all that his career percentage would have begun dropping.

These calculations were done to find out at which point in these players careers they reached their respective highest cumulative career percentages. They are done at year end because otherwise it would take way too long.

Connors was still above 85% at the end of 1984, but his highest point seems to be the end of 1982. On the other hand, McEnroe’s career percentage was a bit higher at the end of 1985 than at the end 1984, which at first I found surprising. Also a bit surprising was that Federer's percentage has continued to rise with respect to what it was at the end of his best period.

Get a clue:
Kodes 73 W competition: Borg, Connors, Nastase and Amritraj among others
Fed: Roddick, Old fart Andre, Coria,Nalbandian,Bagdhatis,Scud,Canas,Gonzalez from chile
Just Nadal and Safin were a real challenge
See the difference?

Without crunching all the numbers I can only guess, but maybe this is happening in both McEnroe and Federer's case because even these declining years (1985 for Mac, 2008-present for Federer) have better win-loss records than the earliest years (1977-78 for Mac, 1998-2002 for Federer).

Interesting to have that pointed out, though: how a year in a player's decline period can still raise the overall average.

Some similar argument has been made about Borg. It's commonly said that Borg's overall percentage would have dropped if he had continued playing full seasons beyond '81. But his career percentage would have continued to rise (or at least not begun falling), so long as any full seasons he played in '82 and '83 were better years than the first few years of his career (1972-75). He might have begun declining in '82 and '83 but that doesn't mean at all that his career percentage would have begun dropping.

Click to expand...

Hi Krosero, I think that simply beating one's own percentage in the early years would generally not be enough.
The true determining factor is whether the percentage during any given new year (or month or whatever we use) is still higher than the cumulative record as it stood at the start of that year or month. In 1985 Mac went 71-9 (88.75%). His cumulative record at the start of that year was 573-100 (85.14%), so when you add the 1985 record, it brings the total to 644-109 (85.52%), up a few tenths of a percent. But it would have gone down if his 1985 record had been for example 82% (even though this might still be significantly higher than his early years).

By the way (and this comment is addressed to poster forzamilan), calculating cumulative percentages in a given period by averaging yearly percentages, happens to work ok in that particular case shown in one of his posts, but it can also give very flawed results in others, as it assigns the same weight to every single year with no regard to the number of matches played. With that method, a player that has a 4-0 record one year and 20-20 the next year, would seem to have a 75% winning percentage over those two years, which is absurd. That method should never be used.